I'm trying to come up with something less likely than the NHL removing that rule. Can't think of anything.

IMO, when you have a player suspended, you should lose an actual lineup spot (maybe more than one, depending on the severity of the suspension). One of your players gets 5 games? For those five games, you can only dress 19 players instead of 20. If somebody gets 10 games, make it two line up spots lost. Adjust as necessary to make suspensions *team* punishments, rather than individual.

Until teams start losing games because their players are reckless, nothing is going to change. Big, dangerous hits weren't invented after the instigator rule.

costermonger:I'm trying to come up with something less likely than the NHL removing that rule. Can't think of anything.

IMO, when you have a player suspended, you should lose an actual lineup spot (maybe more than one, depending on the severity of the suspension). One of your players gets 5 games? For those five games, you can only dress 19 players instead of 20. If somebody gets 10 games, make it two line up spots lost. Adjust as necessary to make suspensions *team* punishments, rather than individual.

Until teams start losing games because their players are reckless, nothing is going to change. Big, dangerous hits weren't invented after the instigator rule.

The article has the same idea, and I tend to agree.

Of course, its not like 4th line goons get that much ice time anyways. The hole left over isn't that big.

Of course, its not like 4th line goons get that much ice time anyways. The hole left over isn't that big.

I have to disagree...those 4th line guys might just be there to give a rest for the 2&3 line guys...but that extra 45 seconds can be crucial. Just look at the number of goals scored after an icing call after the new rule (no player changes for defensive team after icing).

That said, the 4th line used to have specialists (hard shot, hard hit, enforcer) no just AHL rejects...

At the speed and ice surface size the game is played upon, nothing is going to achieve the goal of preventing bad hits. Given those factors, it's impossible to remove hitting from the game entirely, and as long as hitting is a part of the game, you're going to have bad - even dirty - hits.

Removing the instigator penalty might deter a few folks (and probably eliminate the "tiny pest" role filled by Barnaby, Avery, and until recently Cooke), but will do nothing to stop the big guy who likes to fight or is just good at it.

Increased penalties - up to and including shortening benches and death of first-born - isn't going to do it, because it's not like these guys are having long internal monologues with themselves out there about the merits and penalties of hitting a guy between the numbers five with a 15' running starts when their target is five feet from the boards. They see the opportunity and just go for it. And that's a direct function of the speed of the game; a large part of it is instinctual. A dude who is programmed to hit first is occasionally going to go for the hit that he shouldn't, because that's what he does.

Are there some hits that are clearly pre-meditated and individually disprove this (I think Kovalev's elbow on Darcy Tucker was the funniest)? Of course there are - stuff like permanently shortening benches or punative fines will help with those. There's an equal number which are also very clearly snap-decisions made and executed in less than a second - most of the times when a player is about to miss a check and extends to leg to tag the guy a little and it ends up being leg-on-knee, for example. Punitive measures won't help those, because the punitive measures aren't considered - and can't be - in the span the decision is made.

The only way around that is to effectively ban hitting from the ground up (train people NOT to hit in junior hockey, and have the trickle-up effect), and/or to move to a larger ice surface where there's more room to move (which won't stop dirty hits completely, but it'll lessen the number of them).

Large men+high speed+small area in which to move = collisions. Some of them are going to be worse than others. Physics is a biatch sometimes.

They are moving in the right direction over the last couple seasons. But they are still punishing the hit on a sliding scale related to the severity of the injury the receiving player ends up with - despite claims otherwise.

20 plus game suspensions would probably do it, and more for repeat offenders or especially grievous instances. There was a blindside check on Linus Omark in the AHL this week. The guy who made the hit had been hit with a hard legal check at the start of the shift, and spent the entire rest of the shift looking for someone to hurt. Omark stayed on the bench... so 2 games. If Omark was taken out on a stretcher, that same hit gets at least 10.

FightDirector:Increased penalties - up to and including shortening benches and death of first-born - isn't going to do it, because it's not like these guys are having long internal monologues with themselves out there about the merits and penalties of hitting a guy between the numbers five with a 15' running starts when their target is five feet from the boards.

If you're a GM, and you lose games because you employ players who can't prevent themselves from doing this, you won't be employing those players for very long. There's currently no penalty to employing guys like Raffi Torres - he does what he does and gets suspended for 25 games again, you really aren't out much of anything because you just replace him in the lineup, and he's not exactly a superstar.. Now, if Raffi Torres is suspended for 25 games, and the team is restricted to 17 lineup spots for 25 games, now you're feeling the effect, and you're probably not going to offer him another contract.

That's why I find it frustrating when people talk about injuries caused by guys who 'shouldn't be in the NHL'. Set up the rules correctly, and they won't be anymore.

I agree with the articles writer. The salary cap hit would work. Especially in conjunction with one less man on the roster for some of the suspension. Lets say a player gets a 10 game suspension. Make his current team play 5 games with one less man on the roster during the suspension and also put a $50k hit per game suspended on the salary cap of any team that plays him NEXT year. If you did it this way a ten game suspension this year would not only cost this years team 5 days with a short roster, it would also cost each of next years team(s) who hire the guy a half million extra in salary cap hit. Dirty dangerous players who get big suspensions would become less of an asset pretty fast if they cost points and salary cap cost followed them around for a year like albatrosses on their necks.

Need a Dispenser Here:costermonger: I'm trying to come up with something less likely than the NHL removing that rule. Can't think of anything.

IMO, when you have a player suspended, you should lose an actual lineup spot (maybe more than one, depending on the severity of the suspension). One of your players gets 5 games? For those five games, you can only dress 19 players instead of 20. If somebody gets 10 games, make it two line up spots lost. Adjust as necessary to make suspensions *team* punishments, rather than individual.

Until teams start losing games because their players are reckless, nothing is going to change. Big, dangerous hits weren't invented after the instigator rule.

The article has the same idea, and I tend to agree.

Of course, its not like 4th line goons get that much ice time anyways. The hole left over isn't that big.

FTFA: Another approach could be to hamper the team's roster. If a player is suspended, the team doesn't get to ice a full roster during his suspension. A forward lands a four-game suspenion? His team then plays four games with 11 forwards instead of 12

Just here to agree with with the previous 2 comments. In the very least it would give pause to guys making those Raffi Torres on Hossa hits. A short bench for 1 game, no one cares. A short bench for 25 or 30 games might be a different story. This, of course, lives on the assumption that these guys all have their heads with them at all times. Half the penalties in the league seem to be a result of not having your head on straight. (Making the other half, what, not skating/being tired & lazy?)

Lost Thought 00:Fighting results in an automatic ejection and 10 game suspension, as well as a referral to the local DA for felony assault?

You do realize this will increase the number of cheap shots and bad hits in the game, right?

People who make the bad hits aren't getting suspended, and (as others have said), speed of the game. You really can't. Want to teach them not to do that? Remind them that the big guys will come looking for payback.

Blackstone:College hockey OK, NHL won't be a sport to me till they eject players for fighting

Shouldn't CBS be more concerned about Football? Half the posters in this thread aren't even actual fans of hockey. If you aren't a serious fan of hockey you can just shut up and concentrate on a sport you do care about. Hockey doesn't need more Americans trying to change a game they don't watch. I agree with axing the instigator rule FWIW.

ontariolightning:Shouldn't CBS be more concerned about Football? Half the posters in this thread aren't even actual fans of hockey. If you aren't a serious fan of hockey you can just shut up and concentrate on a sport you do care about. Hockey doesn't need more Americans trying to change a game they don't watch. I agree with axing the instigator rule FWIW.

What a wonderful contribution. It's no wonder so many people can't see your posts.

I was going to start with ban for life, starting in the peewee leagues.TADAproblem goes away, forever

oh yah, and a ref that refuses to call the hit?same thingtake his skates and stick and never let him walk on ice again ... TADA

/never going to change. just like concussions in the NFL

Your refs had sticks and had to WALK!? Rough league...

Tell me how I know that most posters here know nothing of hockey?

There is a simple solution to both...remove helmets in both leagues. The only reason a NFL Linebacker feels like he can lead with his head is that he "thinks" he has protection there from a helmet. Take away the helmet and the hits to/from the head go away.

Same solution in Hockey but for additional reasons...Without a helmet these losers can not turtle-up when the enforcer comes after them. Also, most players would rather play without a helmet.

It's almost not even worth commenting on the article. Big hits are going to happen. Hockey is a collision sport. Just dump tons of punishment on players who target the head and make it hurt them. That's the only thing you can do, short of expanding the size of the rink which is impossible in just about every arena.

desertgeek:It's almost not even worth commenting on the article. Big hits are going to happen. Hockey is a collision sport. Just dump tons of punishment on players who target the head and make it hurt them. That's the only thing you can do, short of expanding the size of the rink which is impossible in just about every arena.

with few exceptions, the head hunters are not really point producing players. Thus hurting only the player in question doesn't solve the issue as teams would just bring the next good from minors that can somewhat skate.

I think the idea of shortening the bench for the duration of the suspension is the way to go. GMs and coaches will not bring goons on the squads that will render them short often.

It would also help if there was any sort of consistency at all. Kaleta gets 10 games for a questionable hit meanwhile Kessel gets 3 preasons games (a vacation really) for using his stick as a farking weapon. (The same thing that another player got 25+ games for a few years ago)

Warlordtrooper:It would also help if there was any sort of consistency at all. Kaleta gets 10 games for a questionable hit meanwhile Kessel gets 3 preasons games (a vacation really) for using his stick as a farking weapon. (The same thing that another player got 25+ games for a few years ago)

I don't think you can just eliminate the instigator rule, but I would like to see one change made to it.

Pisses me off to no end when someone throws a hard clean hit, and then has to duck and cover from the rest of the team going after him. I think the instigator should still apply in that case, in fact I think the punishment for instigating after a clean hit should involve match penalty and additional game suspension.

But if someone throws a dirty check (especially to the head), then no instigator punishment. All punishment could be reviewed again after the game if match penalty was assessed and should not have been, just like when ref misses original call for dirty hit and Shanny then gives a suspension.

Warlordtrooper:It would also help if there was any sort of consistency at all. Kaleta gets 10 games for a questionable hit meanwhile Kessel gets 3 preasons games (a vacation really) for using his stick as a farking weapon. (The same thing that another player got 25+ games for a few years ago)

So Crosby and Giroux should get 10 + games for spearing each other a few seasons a go? And Jackman last night? And Corey Perry for all of his spears? Ovechkins even speared a guy. Lets suspend the whole league!

Tyrub:I don't think you can just eliminate the instigator rule, but I would like to see one change made to it.

Pisses me off to no end when someone throws a hard clean hit, and then has to duck and cover from the rest of the team going after him. I think the instigator should still apply in that case, in fact I think the punishment for instigating after a clean hit should involve match penalty and additional game suspension.

But if someone throws a dirty check (especially to the head), then no instigator punishment. All punishment could be reviewed again after the game if match penalty was assessed and should not have been, just like when ref misses original call for dirty hit and Shanny then gives a suspension.

What if a 3rd or 4th liner throws a clean hit that injures your top scorer? You don't think there should be a fight? I do. I don't care if its clean. A guy that barely plays just took out my best player. All bets are off.